Tooltip info gets worse by the unit (Feature Request)

When a unit gives a support (the same support) to more than 4 unit types, the shown list of units able to receive the support in the tooltips popup shifts from a list to just say “Allied Units”.
If only 4 units get support, it is shown like this:

But in reality this map has 5 types (or versions) of Cavalry units: Cavalry, Veteran Cavalry, Elite Cavalry, Knights and Dryads. So the tooltip actually looks like this:

I can understand that the list cannot be unlimited, like showing 10+ unit types in the tooltips. But could the limit of 4 units not be expanded to like 5-10 units? Maybe be rearranged with line breaks, so that it was more a vertical list than a horizontal list.

Alternatively, could the tooltip be made to show a name of a variable list? Like <variable name="Cavalry type units"> would ingame be shown as “Support on Attack & Defense: 1 Cavaliering Power to 5 Cavalry type units.”

@Frostion Yeah 4 is just an arbitrary cap to avoid crazy long tooltips. Raising that cap would be very easy though not sure that really helps but open to doing it if there is a preference for a higher cap.

Using the variable names is a good idea but that would probably require significantly more effort but in theory possible.

We probably would want to show more info rather than less in this scenario. Line breaking once or twice before finally truncating would probably fit most use-cases. If the text is truncated, would be to show some ellipses to explicitly indicate it is cut-off.

@Frostion The way this should work, actually, to cover fully and avoid ridiculous wideness, is that you have a key, and this key is referenced on all targets, like it actually worked for the old supports.

For example, at default setting, you can have the supporting unit as "Support" and all possible target units as "Supportable", in their tooltips.

Customizing it, you can use a key like "infantry", then the support unit can say "Support infantry" and all the target units say "infantry", in their tooltips.

The issue here, however, is that the attachment key traditionally refers to the giver, not to the receiver, so, to make sense with all coded so far, in the moment that key will say something like "artillery", instead of something like "infantry", then it would have to be something like the support unit saying "Artillery support" and all the target units saying "Artillery supportable". Of course, here I mean you would write "Artillery", or whatever, in the type for the support attachment in the game file (no need to show it if only 1 type per game, see the basic case).

Anyways, the word "support" itself is not really good, in the moment you can have negatives, once you go past the standard.

@Cernel , You probably would not believe how much time we spend trying not to break things or change things unexpectedly. In all seriousness, that activity alone of ensuring no regressions probably doubles or triples, or 5x's the time it takes to make any update. Hence why it's so favorable to remove things that need not be there or are barely worth this rather tremendous cost. Even then, we make mistakes as the code is crafted together like a well played game of jenga before the last round.

@LaFayette I think it was obvious that was not a serious statement. I don't actually believe any future developers would remove tooltip customization.

I was just saying that, if making a map, I would just customize the tooltips, so I'm sure that they show up as intended, as I cannot expect that if changes are made in the future they will be optimized for my map...

@redrum@LaFayette So is it possible to modify the engine, to just have a maximum tooltip window width? so to prevent insane long tooltips by adding a line breaks whenever the list of units is too long.

Or is the better solution to go direct to a vertical list of units, perhaps with a tabs/space in front of every unit name, so that the list can stand out by not being left aligned like the rest of the tooltip?

@Frostion Yes. Though the easiest improvement would probably allow a certain number per line say 4-5 on the first line then ~10 on following lines with an indent and then a maximum number of lines (2-4) then show ellipses if there are more.

Example (5 first line, 10 following lines, 3 lines max)
Unit can support unit types A through Z

@redrum Well, I think that would work. It would be better than what we have now. It avoids variable lists and instead presents the actual units affected by the support. And it takes into account that there could be a very many units. I am ready to test it out

@Frostion So first take at this is using 100 max character width, moderate size indent for new lines, and no limit to number of unit types or lines. This impacts both the tooltips and the unit help window so here are examples with Dragon War. Feedback welcome. I will probably at a minimum add some sort of max unit types to allow in the list (something like 50 or 100 in case any map has just a ridiculous number of units) though not sure anything more than 20-30 is really worth displaying.

Can someone explain me how is it not better having something like:+1 ArtilleryBonus Strength to 1 Own/Allied
(no list) on the RussianArtillery, and, then, something like:Can be supported by ArtilleryBonus
on the russianAlpineInfantry etc..

(better just calling it "Artillery", but that's in the game file)

The only reason I can see is that, then, you would have to read all tooltips to see what are the supportable targets, but this is offset by the fact that, when reading the tooltips of those targets, instead, you don't have to read all tooltips to see if there is a unit, somewhere, that may give support, at least if you see no "can be supported" reference, and, anyways, I believe such general matters should be information in Notes.

Except that, if it is negative, it should say "Can be suppressed", instead of "Can be supported".

Also, most likely I've already said this too, but saying 1 ArtilleryBonus Power to 1 Allied is wrong! If you say "to 1 Allied", that means you are giving it only to allies (which makes particularly no sense in this case, twice over, since the targets are units that none of your allies have and, anyways, you can never support any allies in attack, only in defence, and this one doesn't work in defence), not to your own units too, or any non allied units that is on your same side on the battleboard (also remember that, when defending, you can fight with your enemies, as long as both you and your enemies are enemy of the attacker, so we need to test how support works here, as well as figuring how it should be supposed to work, rulewise (saying Own/Allied may be not enough, as well)). If you say "1 Power to" that is not really communicating how that power is given (am I receiving 1 bonus dice to roll at 1?), so it should have been "+1 Power to", to hint better it is a modifier, at least, but it would be still wrong, because, if you increase by 1 the value you are rolling for, you are actually giving +1 Power only in case that unit is rolling 1 dice, but you are actually giving +0 Power if that unit is rolling 0 dice, +2 Power if the unit is rolling 2 dice, etc., unless we change the meaning of power from what I believe has been its usage so far.

Anyways, those are the reasons why I would rather just customize my tooltips (also since you never know what they will say at any point in the future (might get worse)).

@Cernel Not sure either is "better" but you could have the same challenge if you have lots of different types of support then you end up having to list for each unit that can be support something like "Can be supported by A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H...". I think the main thing is most players naturally think about the thing giving the support rather than receiving it.

"Allied" is generally used to include both the owner and their allies. I don't think I've ever seen anyone else question that but changing it to "Own/Allied" would be an easy update if so.

"Power" indicates an increase to the dice roll vs "Roll" indicates additional dice rolls. Not sure there are better terms but seems straightforward to me.

@redrum Mostly, I suppose we need to document it somewhere, then stick with it. I'm just saying that, especially since Low Luck, when you say power I think that's what you mean (no matter how many dice it is split into), but not like I'm the official word of TripleA, nor I have a reference right now, and we cannot ask veqryn, I guess.

Yeah I suppose strength would be better, though maybe the only clear way would be to say "offensive value" or "defensive value", not completely sure on this point.

@Panther What would you use as terms, from a boardgames standpoint, to define the value you need to roll equal or lower and that multiplied by the number of dice you roll (for example, Classic heavy bombers)?